Snapshot Isolation Problem, How To Do It?
Sep 20, 2007
Hello all
I´m having some trouble with a query I´m using to BCP all rows in a certain table to a flat file.
The query looks like this:
Code Snippet
USE AVK
GO
SET TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL SNAPSHOT;
GO
SELECT *
FROM tempProducts
GO
IF @@ROWCOUNT > 0
BEGIN
BEGIN TRANSACTION
DECLARE @date char(8)
DECLARE @time char(8)
DECLARE @sql VARCHAR(150)
SELECT @date = CONVERT(char(8), getdate(),112)
SELECT @time = CONVERT(char(8), getdate(),108)
SELECT @time = REPLACE(@time,':','')
DECLARE @dt char(14)
SELECT @dt = @date + '_' + @time
SELECT @sql = 'bcp "SELECT Data_Line FROM avk..EXPORT_ORDERS ORDER BY ROW_ORDER" queryout "c:AVK_' + @dt + '.txt" -c -t -U sa -P dalla'
EXEC master..xp_cmdshell @sql
WAITFOR DELAY '0:00:10';
SELECT *
FROM tempProducts
DELETE
FROM tempProducts
COMMIT TRANSACTION
END
What I´m trying to do here is copy all rows in tempProducts to my flat file, and the delete ONLY the rows that existed when I entered the transaction. I tried inserting some rows into tempProducts, start this query, insert som more rows (which I can do because of the WAITFOR DELAY), and this is the result.
--Output from first select
S3 Plastpall trippelkrage 40 6
--BCP Output
NULL
Starting copy...
NULL
3 rows copied.
Network packet size (bytes): 4096
Clock Time (ms.) Total : 1 Average : (3000.00 rows per sec.)
NULL
--Select before delete statement
S3 Plastpall trippelkrage 40 6
S3 Plastpall trippelkrage 40 7
So even if only 1 row existed when I entered the transaction, any rows inserted during the transaction are also deleted.
What am I doing wrong here? The EXPORT_ORDERS is a view, looking like this:
Code SnippetSELECT 1 AS ROW_ORDER, 'H' + REPLACE(CONVERT(char(8), GETDATE(), 112) + CONVERT(char(8), GETDATE(), 108), ':', '') AS Data_Line
UNION ALL
SELECT 2 AS ROW_ORDER, 'D' + COALESCE (CONVERT(char(10), LBTyp), '') + COALESCE (CONVERT(char(50), Description), '') + COALESCE (CONVERT(char(5),
Volume), '') AS Data_Line
FROM dbo.tempProducts
UNION ALL
SELECT 3 AS ROW_ORDER, 'E' + RIGHT('0000000000' + RTRIM(CONVERT(char(13), COUNT(*) + 2)), 11) AS Data_Line
FROM dbo.tempProducts AS tempProducts_1
View 5 Replies
ADVERTISEMENT
Sep 27, 2005
Ruprect asked me in this thread (http://www.dbforums.com/showthread.php?postid=4469852#post4469852) to start a thread on snapshot isolation for questions etc, so here it is.
Please have a read of the excellent whitepaper at http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnsql90/html/sql2k5snapshotisol.asp
and then post any questions.
My team owns snapshot isolation and the devs who wrote it work for me so I can answer all questions you may have.
Thanks
View 3 Replies
View Related
Jun 8, 2007
I have an application that needs to run on both Oracle10g and SQL Server 2005. What do I need to do for "Oracle-style locking" in SQL 2005 ?
That is, readers & writers never block each other, and you get a consistent view of the database from the point in time your transaction started (e.g. long-running queries across multiple tables shouldn't see committed data from other transactions that started later than this current transaction).
I'm confused as to whether i should be using Snapshot Isolation (SET ALLOW_SNAPSHOT_ISOLATION ON) , or Read committed isolation using row versioning (SET READ_COMMITTED_SNAPSHOT ON).
I think I need snapshot isolation, but not certain. Also, if I turn on snapshot isolation at the database level, is that automatically enforced for all transactions against the database, or do developers have to manually specify SET TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL SNAPSHOT; for every single query they write ? I hope not the latter, otherwise someone is bound to forget!
If it needs to be specified for every query, how does that work for C#/ADO.NET 2.0 ? Is it
DbTransaction transaction = connection.BeginTransaction(IsolationLevel.Snapshot);
So, which of the two snapshot isolations do I need for "Oracle-style locking" in SQL 2005 ?
Many thanks!
Andy
View 3 Replies
View Related
May 30, 2006
I was reading at the following page:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnsql2k/html/sql_replmergepartitioned.asp
When SQL Server accesses the data in a table, it locks the data for the duration of the process to ensure the transactional consistency of the data during the process.
I was wondering if it is possible to take advantage of snapshot isolation to allow me to avoid these locks?
View 5 Replies
View Related
Nov 29, 2007
Hi,we are executing the following query in a stored procedure using snapshot isolation level:DELETE FROM tBackgroundProcessProgressReportFROM tBackgroundProcessProgressReport LEFT OUTER JOIN tBackgroundProcess ON
tBackgroundProcess.BackgroundProcessProgressReportID =
tBackgroundProcessProgressReport.BackgroundProcessProgressReportID LEFT
OUTER JOIN tBackgroundProcessProgressReportItem ON
tBackgroundProcessProgressReport.BackgroundProcessProgressReportID =
tBackgroundProcessProgressReportItem.BackgroundProcessProgressReportIDWHERE (tBackgroundProcess.BackgroundProcessID IS NULL) AND (tBackgroundProcessProgressReportItem.BackgroundProcessProgressReportItemID IS NULL)The query should delete records from tBackgroundProcessProgressReport which are not connected with the other two tables.However, for some reasone we get the following exception:System.Data.SqlClient.SqlException:
Snapshot isolation transaction aborted due to update conflict. You
cannot use snapshot isolation to access table 'dbo.tBackgroundProcess'
directly or indirectly in database 'RHSS_PRD_PT_Engine' to update,
delete, or insert the row that has been modified or deleted by another
transaction. Retry the transaction or change the isolation level for
the update/delete statement.The exception specifies that we are
not allowed to update/delete/insert records in tBackgroundProcess, but
the query indeed deletes records from tBackgroundProcessProgressReport,
not from the table in the exception.Is the exception raised because of the join?Has someone encountered this issue before?Thanks,Yani
View 1 Replies
View Related
Dec 10, 2014
I have several databases set to read committed snapshot isolation level. Tempdb is configured according to best practices, but I don't see it's used much.
The application uses EF6, and it calls the stored procedures in the following way
Database.ExecuteSqlCommandAsync("exec dbo.spSync_MatchesByTenant @MatchesGroup, @TenantId", parameter, licenseIDParam);
Is it possible the code does not use the read committed snapshot isolation level of the database?
View 6 Replies
View Related
Jun 20, 2007
Hi
I seem to have a strange problem when applying a snapshot when the tables in the publication have been updated while the snapshot was being generated.
Say for example there is a table called RMAReplacedItem in the publication. When the snapshot starts being applied to the subscriber, a stored procedure called sp_MSins_RMAReplacedItem_msrepl_css gets created that handles an insert if the row already exists (ie it updates the row rather than inserting it). However, after all the data has been loaded into the tables, instead of calling this procedure, it tries to call one called sp_MSins_RMAReplacedIte_msrepl_cssm - it takes the last letter of the table name and adds it to the end of the procedure name.
The worst part is that this causes the application of the snapshot to fail, but it doesnt report what the error is, and instead it just tries applying the snapshot again. The only way i have managed to find which call is failing is to run profiler against the subscriber while the snapshot is being applied and see what errors.
I have run sp_broswereplcmds and the data in there is what is applied to the subscriber - ie the wrong procedure name.
All the servers involved are running sql 2005 service pack 2. The publisher and subscriber were both upgraded from sql 2000, but the distribution server is a fresh install of sql 2005.
View 1 Replies
View Related
Sep 16, 2007
I read about isolation levels... good, how can I set a proper isolation if I have 100 transactions... What is the aproche?:shocked:
View 1 Replies
View Related
Jan 12, 2007
lets say user1 is reading row1, then user2 reads and updates row1, when user1 is about to update row1 i want him to be informed that his copy of row1 have been updated, so he has now the options to either get the new version of row1 or cancel his update process.
View 4 Replies
View Related
Nov 15, 2000
Is there a way to change the default isolation level at the SQL Server level to READ UNCOMMITED ??
View 2 Replies
View Related
Jun 30, 2004
Hi, folks. Please guide.
I have a VB application that is used for production and reporting. I 've been having alerts for deadlocks that popup after every 2 or 3 minutes. I am planning to seperate reporing server by using transactional replication from production server to the reporting server. However some reports update and insert data so i need reporting server to be enabled for DML.
Is there any option on the server-level where i can force each user to operate in READ-UNCOMMITTED mode instead of specifying WITH (NOLOCK) in the queries of my application. Dirty reads won't bother me in current situation, i guess the propotion of fast reads would be a better trade-off.
New to SQL, Thanx for helping!!
Howdy.
View 14 Replies
View Related
Sep 16, 2007
Hi all. I have a question. I 've read already about isolation lavels, but I don't understand how in practic set proper isolation if I have say 100 transactions..what is the algoriphm?
View 4 Replies
View Related
Sep 10, 2002
Hello all,
What is the TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL settings for MSSQL like the default setting in Oracle. In Oracle the default setting allows one session to read consistent data without waiting for the other sessions to commit/rollback the data.
For eg: In Mssql, if I update table A in the first session, and in another session (second session) if I select from table A, the second session waits till the first session completes the updates and commit or rollbacks.
But in Oracle , if I update table A in the first session, and in another session (second session) if I select from table A, the second session will perform a read from the ROLLBACK SEGS and give a read consistent data without waiting for the first session to commit or rollback the transaction.
Is this type of behaviour is possible is MSSQL. And If YES how can I do it?
Thanks for any help
Suresh
View 10 Replies
View Related
Jul 4, 2005
Hi all,
can anyone give me more information on
set transaction isolation level serializable ?? I want to prove some lock to use on online insert and update.
Thank you every much.
View 14 Replies
View Related
Jul 24, 2007
Not sure if this is more a .Net question or SQL Server, but I think it belongs here.
I have a small .Net app that reads records from a bunch of files from disk and inserts them into a database table. There could be several hundred files resulting in 100,000 records or more each time its run. Since it's a large table there are of course a few indexes on it so the insert takes a while. For larger sessions it could run as long as an hour. I need it to run in a transaction so that if anything happens while it's running the records from that run were committed on an all or nothing basis. However, I don't want to lock the table at all while the insert is happening. These aren't transaction records or anything like that, and the batches are separated by client so there will be no conflicts (no need to lock the table).
Unfortunately, no matter what I use for the isolation level of the transaction the table always ends up locked for reads. Data from previous runs is live at this point and we can't allow that. I have the choice of the following isolation levels when I create the transaction, but none seems to work:
Chaos
ReadCommitted
ReadUncommitted
RepeatableRead
Serializable
Snapshot
Unspecified
I would expect Chaos, ReadUncommitted, or Snapshot be okay here, but I can't seem to get it working. Any thoughts?
View 4 Replies
View Related
Feb 15, 2006
I am redesigning an application that distributes heldesk tickets to our50 engineers automatically. When the engineer logs into their window astored procedure executes that searches through all open tickets andassigns a predetermined amount of the open tickets to that engineer.Theproblem I am running into is that if 2 or more engineers log in at thesame time the stored procedure will distribute the same set of ticketsmultiple times.Originally this was fixed by "reworking" the way SQL Server handlestransactions. The original developer wrote his code like this:-----DECLARE @RET_STAT INTSELECT 'X' INTO #TEMPBEGIN TRANUPDATE #TEMP SET 'X' = 'Y'SELECT TOP 1 @TICKET_# =TICKET_NUMBER FROM TICKETS WHERE STATUS = 'O'EXEC @RET_STAT = USP_MOVE2QUEUE @TICKET_#, @USERIDIF @RET_STAT <> 0ROLLBACK TRANRETURN @RET_STATENDCOMMIT TRAN-----The UPDATE of the #TEMP table forces the transaction to kick off andlocks the row in table TICKETS until the entire transaction hascompleted.I would like to get rid of the #TEMP table and start using isolationlevels, but I am unsure which isolation level would continue to lockthe selected data and not allow anyone else access. Do I need acombination of isolation level and "WITH (ROWLOCK)"?Additionally, the TICKETS table is used throughout the application andI cannot exclusively lock the entire table just for the distributionprocess. It is VERY high I/O!Thanks for the help.
View 3 Replies
View Related
Nov 3, 2007
Hi,I have 1 SQL statement selecting data from various tables and updating othertables.The question then is how do I prevent other applications from modifying thetables that I'm working on (that is while my transaction is being executed)?I know that the isolation level should be either REPEATABLE READ orSERIALIZABLE. But I need confirmation on if one of these actually solve myissue - prevents other applications/threads from modifying/inserting datainto the same tables that I'm working on.Thanks in advance,Daniel
View 5 Replies
View Related
May 7, 2008
I have an issue in one of my stored procs. I set the Isolation level to read uncommitted at the beginning of the proc and then I try to reset this isolation level back to read committed. When reset the isolation level, I get and error. has anyone encountered this before?
Thank you
View 3 Replies
View Related
Jan 15, 2007
lets say user1 is reading row1, then user2 reads and updates row1, when user1 is about to update row1 i want him to be informed that his copy of row1 have been updated, so he has now the options to either get the new version of row1 or cancel his update process or continue his update
by the way, im using typed dataset on my data access layer.
thanks..
View 1 Replies
View Related
Aug 15, 2006
Is there a way to define Connection Manager with Read Uncommited isolation level? I do not want to specify (nolock) in all my commands and instead want to give a generic defenition at the Connection level.
Is this possible?
View 1 Replies
View Related
May 22, 2006
Good morning,
I am trying to get my head around locking (row, table) and Isolation Levels. We have written a large .NET/SQL application and one day last week we had about two dozen people in our company do some semi "stress/load" testing of the app.
On quite a few occassions, a few of the users would receive the following error:
"Transaction (Process ID xx) was deadlocked on lock resources with another process and has been chosen as the deadlock victim. Rerun the transaction."
We are handling this on two fronts, the app and the database. The error handling in the app is being modified to capture this specific error and to retry the transaction.
However, from the database side, I am trying to find the most affective and efficient change to make regarding locking. I have been doing a lot of reading online and in BOL to get a better grasp of locking, but what I would really like is feedback from the community (forum) and get your thoughts on what changes I should make, if any, on the db side.
Thanks...
Scott
View 5 Replies
View Related
Mar 20, 2008
What are the different kinds of Transaction Isolation Level? How they useful in day to day activity as SQL Developer ?
View 2 Replies
View Related
Feb 23, 2007
Hi,
I would like to be able to alter the default isolation level at connection time via the ADO connection string. Can this be done?
Why? I have various reporting applications (Crystal etc.) that queries against MS SQL server using ADO (SQLOLEDB). I would like to be able to alter the isolation level for these queries to readuncommitted. But many of the reporting applications does not have this option and they autogenerate the SQL making it impossible to use the use the WITH(table_hints) clause in the SELECT statement. So if I could set the isolation level in the connection string this could be a workaround.
Any help will be appreciated!
Bertrand
View 6 Replies
View Related
Mar 3, 2003
Is there any way to confirm the isolation level of a given connection from outside of the connection itself?
As far as I can see, DBCC USEROPTIONS only returns information regarding the current connection.
I am troubleshooting a locking issue and it would be very helpful to me if I could check the isolation level of any given connection.
Thanks in advance for any help.
View 1 Replies
View Related
Apr 25, 2005
Hi,
I currently have a requirement for access to a SQL Server 2000 box using Access 2003. The queries will sometimes be quite demanding which in turn might affect the rest of the SQL users on the system.
Does anyone know of any setting in Access so that I can achieve the same result as setting the TRANSACTION ISOLATION level using T-SQL?
Any ideas would be much appreciated.
Regards,
Paul.
View 4 Replies
View Related
May 6, 2015
By setting the TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL READ UNCOMMITTED; is this automatically sets all the joined tables to NOLOCK?
Or, in order this statement to work right, this needs to be only done inside BEGIN TRAN > COMMIT (ROLLBACK) statement?
View 7 Replies
View Related
Jul 20, 2005
To all SQL gurus:I have a Windows Service that uses a single SQL Server table toretrieve items of work. Each thread of the service checks this tablefor the earliest item of work that is not already in process, marksthat item as in process, then begins to work the item. My concern iswhether the threads will begin to step on each other's toes by pickingthe same item of work at the same time. To prevent this, I use thefollowing SQL table:[WorkItems]WorkItem varchar(512)DateSubmitted datetimeStatus intIn requesting the next work item, I use the following SQL syntax:DECLARE @workitem varchar(512)SET TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL SERIALIZABLEBEGIN TRANSACTIONSELECT TOP 1 @workitem=WorkItemName FROM WorkItems WHERE Status=1ORDER BY DateSubmittedUPDATE WorkItems SET Status=2 WHERE WorkItemName=@workitemSELECT * FROM WorkItems WHERE WorkItemName=@workitemCOMMIT TRANSACTIONThe idea is that the Transaction Isolation Level, along with the threestatements in the transaction block, will only let one thread at atime request the next work item. The three statements in thetransaction block select the next work item, mark it as in process,then return the work item to the calling thread. In limited testing,all seems well. Before going into production, however, I would like tosee if anyone can confirm that my ideas will indeed prevent threadsfrom duplicating each other's work.Will the above SQL syntax allow me to run multiple threads all lookingto the same database table for work, but prevent them from selectingany of the same work at the same time? If you need more information,please ask.Reply to newsgroup, or directly at Join Bytes!.Matthew Roberts
View 3 Replies
View Related
Nov 14, 2007
Is there a way to alter the isolation level of a data source? I have queries with nolock hints that I would like to remove in favor of "set isolation level read uncommitted" but this is not allowed in the report builder. I cannot move to SPs as I'm working in a third-party apps database. I guess I'm wishing for the SSIS style of isolation setting where it's a member of the properties.
View 2 Replies
View Related
May 11, 2015
What is the best isolation level to be used to avoid deadlocks?
View 4 Replies
View Related
May 22, 2008
Hello all.
I'm a litle confused about what's best to use, either isolation levels or locking per table.
Cause there are some queries in the stored procedures where I don't need locking i.e. when I check the status of client, but other queries where I do need locking like when I check the existence of a product.
What's best to use, can I combine both? Could you explain it thecnically?
lots of thanks in advance
View 1 Replies
View Related
May 19, 2008
I need to set the Isolation Level (in ADO) for the Non-transaction queries to SNAPSHOT.
Both the ADO.Connection.IsolationLevel Property and the SQL Server SET TRANSACTION ISOLATION LEVEL command set the Isolation Level for the Transaction queries but no for the non-transaction queries.
I cannot use the READ_COMMITTED_SNAPSHOT database option, becaus when I am in a transaction I need the READ COMMITTED Isolation Level not the SNAPSHOT Isolation Level.
I don't want to rewrite the entire code of my existing application to add (NOLOCK).
Thanks,
View 10 Replies
View Related
May 4, 2007
Hello,
it it possible to to set for appropriate linked server fixed isolation level. Somewhere in linked server settings?
Say, if I want for every query from server SQLServer_A to linked server SQLServer_B to run with isolation level read uncommited.
It's clear, that I can state in very procedure, that uses SQLServer_B "set transaction isolation level read uncommitted". But it's not a way out, as I have thousand stored procedures writted a long time ago.
For the time being SQLServer_A is 2000 SP4 version and SQLServer_B (linked) 2005 SP2a version.
May be it is possible for both servers of 2005 version only?
Many thanks!
View 2 Replies
View Related
Jul 5, 2005
Are there really any benefit on using Read Uncommitted Isolation Level or having a NOLOCK hints for retrieve queries when the default Isolation level just Read Committed (not using COM+). I'm confused why the Community Server uses this technique perhaps for perf issues but I couldn't see any reason why...
View 1 Replies
View Related